Reading Log 2: Response to the Danger Mouse Article

Krystyn Davis

Billy Middleton

2/18/10

I think that the author of the Danger Mouse article is arguing that mash-ups and file sharing should be acceptable in our society. I also think that he is arguing that corporate music producers are abusing copyright laws far too much and that mash-ups are doing society justice by going against this. However, this argument cannot be easily seen when reading the article only one time due to its confusing organization and vocabulary. The reader has to pay close attention to the article and probably even read it more than once to understand what Gunderson is trying to say.

One specific example in the article that shows this argument is the last paragraph. The author describes Danger Mouse as a cultural prophet because he threatens the music industry and producers by sharing music and creating mash-ups illegally. However, it was difficult to find very many specific examples that supported his argument, which was another reason why it was difficult to determine exactly what Gunderson’s argument was.

I think that by making his article very difficult to understand, Gunderson forces the reader to really think about what he is trying to argue. He is discussing a very controversial topic, and I think that by making the reader really pay attention to his article he is pushing his opinion into their head even more, which could possibly change their opinion on the topic of file sharing. Ultimately, if he was only targeting an intellectual audience, this way of writing could work. However, when writing about mash-ups/file sharing, he should probably target the average Joe as well, who is less likely to read this puzzling and complex article.

Also, while discussing the controversial topic of mash-ups and file sharing in his “supposed to be review”, Gunderson cites three very intellectual people. One was a philosopher, one a neurologist, one an economist and scholar, and one a psychotherapist and philosopher. I think that this clearly shows that he was writing from an intellectual point of view and his article is meant mainly for and intellectual audience. This clue along with the others can show us who he was writing this article to, as well as why he wrote this article.